NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy

Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy

Operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy

Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308

Trial-Run of a Junction-Box 

Attachment Test for Use in 

Photovoltaic Module 

Qualification

Preprint

David C. Miller, Scott L. Deibert, and 

John H. Wohlgemuth

To be presented at the 40th IEEE Photovoltaic Specialists 

Conference (PVSC)

Denver, Colorado

June 8-13, 2014

Conference Paper

NREL/CP-5200-61102

June 2014
NOTICE

The submitted manuscript has been offered by an employee of the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC 

(Alliance), a contractor of the US Government under Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308. Accordingly, the US 

Government and Alliance retain a nonexclusive royalty-free license to publish or reproduce the published form of 

this contribution, or allow others to do so, for US Government purposes.

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States government. 

Neither the United States government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, 

express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of 

any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately 

owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, 

trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, 

or favoring by the United States government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors 

expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States government or any agency thereof.

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy

Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications. 

Available electronically at http://www.osti.gov/scitech

Available for a processing fee to U.S. Department of Energy

and its contractors, in paper, from:

U.S. Department of Energy

Office of Scientific and Technical Information

P.O. Box 62

Oak Ridge, TN 37831-0062

phone: 865.576.8401

fax: 865.576.5728

email: mailto:reports@adonis.osti.gov

Available for sale to the public, in paper, from:

U.S. Department of Commerce

National Technical Information Service

5285 Port Royal Road

Springfield, VA 22161

phone: 800.553.6847

fax: 703.605.6900

email: orders@ntis.fedworld.gov

online ordering: http://www.ntis.gov/help/ordermethods.aspx

Cover Photos: (left to right) photo by Pat Corkery, NREL 16416, photo from SunEdison, NREL 17423, photo by Pat Corkery, NREL 

16560, photo by Dennis Schroeder, NREL 17613, photo by Dean Armstrong, NREL 17436, photo by Pat Corkery, NREL 17721.
1 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Trial-Run of a Junction-Box Attachment Test 

for Use in Photovoltaic Module Qualification 

David C. Miller, Scott L. Deibert, and John. H. Wohlgemuth

National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 15013 Denver West Parkway, Golden, CO 80401-3214, USA

Abstract — Engineering robust adhesion of the 

junction box (j-box) is a hurdle typically encountered by 

photovoltaic module manufacturers during product 

development and manufacturing process control. There 

are historical incidences of adverse effects (e.g., fires) 

caused when the j-box/adhesive/module system has failed 

in the field. The addition of a weight to the j-box during 

the “damp-heat,” “thermal-cycle,” or “creep” tests within 

the IEC qualification protocol is proposed to verify the 

basic robustness of the adhesion system. The details of the 

proposed test are described, in addition to a trial-run of 

the test procedure. The described experiments examine 

four moisture-cured silicones, four foam tapes, and a hotmelt adhesive used in conjunction with glass, KPE, THV, 

and TPE substrates. For the purpose of validating the 

experiment, j-boxes were adhered to a substrate, loaded 

with a prescribed weight, and then subjected to aging. The 

replicate mock-modules were aged in an environmental 

chamber (at 85°C/85% relative humidity for 1000 hours; 

then 100°C/<10% relative humidity for 200 hours) or 

fielded in Golden (CO), Miami (FL), and Phoenix (AZ) for 

one year. Attachment strength tests, including pluck and 

shear test geometries, were also performed on smaller 

component specimens. 

Index Terms — photovoltaics, module qualification, 

polymer, junction-box attachment test. 

I. INTRODUCTION

Component adhesion relies on the system of 

attachment, which includes the component, 

adhesive(s), preparation of the adhered surfaces, and 

substrate. Historically, the system of adhesion for 

junction boxes (j-boxes) has proven an essential 

product detail for photovoltaic (PV) module 

manufacturers. The possible safety consequences of 

failure in the field for the j-box include electrical arcing 

and/or subsequent initiation of fire [1]. The detachment 

of the j-box also risks ingress of liquid water, 

subsequent corrosion, and the corresponding loss of 

performance. Possible failure mechanisms include: 

phase transformation, viscoelastic flow (creep), 

cohesive failure, and delamination [2]. Detachment of 

the j-box may also result from the degradation of the 

substrate (e.g., delamination [3] or hydrolysis [4] of the 

backsheet). 

We have recently proposed the addition of a weight 

to the j-box during the “damp-heat” [5],[6], “thermalcycle” [5],[6], or “creep” [7] tests within the 

International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) 

qualification protocols to verify the basic robustness of 

the adhesion system [8],[9]. The damp-heat test is 

performed at 85°C/85%RH for 1000 hours; thermalcycle test is performed between -40°C and 85°C for 

200 cycles; and the creep test is performed at 105°C for 

200 hours. The weighted junction-box test is intended 

to query worst-case application conditions, which can 

approach 85°C and 105°C for rack- and roof-mounted 

modules, respectively, deployed in desert locations [8]. 

The attachment test is intended to emulate 

prolonged but intermittent wind, snow, or external (e.g., 

animal) loads in installations with limited cable 

management (routing trays and cable ties). The typical 

combined weight of the cable and connector

components is ~0.2 kg. A 4x margin of safety might be 

applied for the test to account for combined adverse 

loads in addition to the relatively short duration of the 

test. In the proposed test, [8],[9], a weight is attached to 

the sealed j-box, using wires, clips, or similar methods, 

to achieve attachment. The proposed attachment test 

would be performed with modules oriented upright to 

facilitate the maximum packing density in an 

environmental chamber. In this configuration, the test 

typically renders an applied shear load, with possible 

minor out-of-plane strain (depending on the attachment 

scheme). 

Previous module-level experiments focused on the 

choice of weight for the test [8],[9]. A 0.5- or 0.9-kg 

weight was recommended for further study, based on 

the results and the application requirements. Previous 

material-level characterizations—including thermogravimetric analysis, differential scanning calorimetry

(DSC), and dynamic mechanical analysis—were used 

to interpret the results (failure modes) for the 
2 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

representative materials examined in Refs. [8],[9]. The 

merits of each type of adhesive, as well as knowndurable and known-incompatible attachment systems 

(substrate/adhesive/j-box), were also examined in Refs. 

[8],[9]. 

The goal of the study here is to validate the 

proposed test, by comparing the results of indoor- and 

field-aging. Representative test specimens including 

nine adhesives were used in conjunction with four types 

of substrates. The replicate mock-module specimens

were aged in an environmental chamber (including the 

damp-heat and creep tests) or fielded in Golden (CO), 

Miami (FL), and Phoenix (AZ). Attachment strength 

testing, including pluck and shear test geometries, was 

performed on smaller component specimens.

Recommendations for the test, including the choice of a 

1-kg weight as well as the use of multiple indoor aging 

conditions, follow from the results of the present study.

II. EXPERIMENTAL

As shown in Figure 1, a series of mock modules 

was constructed, similar to Refs. [8],[9]. Commercial jboxes (including a four-rail component used in silicon 

modules or a two-rail component used in thin-film 

modules) were attached to a glass, KPE , THV, or TPE 

substrate. 

KPE Multiguard (FLEXcon Company Inc.) 

consists of a laminate of: polyvinylidene fluoride 

(PVDF “Kynar” film, manufactured by Arkema Inc.); 

polyethylene terephthalate (PET); and ethylene-covinyl acetate (EVA). THV consists of a laminate of: 

tetrafluoroethylene, hexafluoropropylene, and 

vinylidene fluoride (THV); PET; and EVA. TPE

consists of a laminate of: polyvinyl fluoride (PVF, 

“Tedlar”), polyester, and EVA. In the backsheet 

materials, the PVDF, THV, and PVF layers face the 

environment.

Each j-box was attached with a single adhesive, 

i.e., one of: four silicones; four foam tapes; or a 

polyolefin (PO) hot-melt adhesive. The silicones all 

consisted of two-part moisture-cure schemes, including: 

acetoxy (Sn catalyzed), two types of alkoxy (Ti 

catalyzed), and oxime (Sn catalyzed) formulations. The 

alkoxy silicones include one recent, high green-strength 

formulation. The foam tapes included: polyethylene 

(PE), polyurethane (PU), and two acrylic formulations. 

The PE and PU tapes consisted of two thin adhesive 

layers on a thick core layer, whereas the acrylic tapes 

were monolithic. Regarding the acrylic tapes, the 2110 

and 4110 Solar Acrylic Foam Tape (SAFT, 3M 

Company) products were examined, respecitvely. A 0-, 

0.5-, or 0.9-kg weight was attached to each of the 

replicate j-boxes. A silicone rubber trim (P/N 4869A3, 

McMaster-Carr Supply Co.) was attached at the module 

periphery using one of the silicone adhesives to prevent 

fracture of the glass layer. Figure 1 shows one of the 

module specimens at the end of the damp-heat test. The 

figure includes the fiberglass channel (P/N 3261T, 

McMaster-Carr Supply Co.) frame that was used to 

hold the modules upright in the chamber. Additional

channel was also used to construct a tray to deflect 

detached specimens. 

Figure 1: Representative specimen, constructed for the trialrun, photographed after completing the “damp-heat” indoor 

aging. The deflector tray used to protect the second (lower) 

row of specimens is labeled.

Indoor aging was performed using a “WITR” test 

chamber [SPX Corp. (Thermal Product Solutions 

Division)], programmed for damp-heat followed by the

creep test. Replicate modules were simultaneously 

fielded in Golden, Miami, and Phoenix for one year. 

All fielded modules were rack mounted at 45°. The 

front glass surface of the fielded modules was painted 

with a black primer (P/N 245198, Rust-Oleum Corp.), 

with a measured absorptance similar to that of a PV 

module [10]. The mock modules were not producing 

electricity, and therefore may reach a slightly greater 

temperature than rack mounted PV. The temperature of 

the modules in Miami and Phoenix (for one of each 

type of substrate) was monitored using a T-type 

thermocouple. Additional thermography was performed 

on the specimens fielded in Golden using an infrared 

camera (ThermaCAM SC640, FLIR Systems Inc.). The 

camera, which operates at wavelengths from 7.5 to 13 

μm, is capable of resolving temperature to within 

0.06°C.

Adhesion strength tests were performed using a 

5500R loadframe (Instron Corp.) equipped with a 5-kN 

loadcell (P/N A217-17, Instron Corp). Similar to ISO 

4587 [11] and ISO 6922 [12], respectively, shear and

pluck tests were performed using an aluminum

/adhesive/glass geometry. A 25-mm x 25-mm x 1-mm 

adhesive specimen size was examined for one of the 

tape and one of the silicone materials. Crosshead 

speeds of 0.1, 1, 10, 100, and 1000 mm⋅min-1 were used 

for sets of five replicate specimens. Elongation was 
3 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

taken as the crosshead extension, which was not 

compensated to account for machine or fixture 

compliance.

III. FIELD TEST CONDITIONS

Temperature conditions for the field experiments 

are summarized in Table I. Among the sites, Phoenix 

has the greatest maximum temperature, Miami the 

greatest relative humidity, and Golden the greatest 

range in temperature (including the lowest minimum 

temperature). None of the fielded mock modules 

achieved a temperature of 85°C (the record maximum 

anticipated for a rack-mounted module in Phoenix). 

None of the sites achieved the average ambient relative 

humidity of 85%. Furthermore, the humidity in a 

module (operating at an elevated temperature) would be 

significantly lower than the field ambient.

Table I: Summary of the ambient and module temperature 

conditions. The average, maximum, and minimum 

temperatures; average relative humidity; and average and 

maximum wind speed are provided for the 1-year deployment 

period (conditions including both day and night).

In a recent study [10], temperature data were also 

obtained using a thin-film T-type thermocouple taped 

to the back of PV modules. In that study, an ~15°C 

range was found to exist across a module, from a center 

location to the frame. Furthermore, a Tmax of 105°C 

was measured for roof-mounted modules in Phoenix.

Models as in Ref. [13] allow the module temperature to 

be estimated from the meteorological conditions. The 

King model suggests that the Tmax of 110°C may be 

briefly achieved for roof-mounted modules during 

record hot weather (55°C ambient) in Riyadh, Saudi 

Arabia. Roof-mounted modules are generally ~15°C 

warmer than rack-mounted modules [10],[13],[14]. 

The module temperature measurements in Table I

were obtained near the center of the mock modules 

using thermocouples, attached to the backsheet surface 

in an open area between j-boxes. The temperature on 

the backsheet is typically 1°–2°C cooler than the cell 

temperature [15], i.e., the temperature typically 

represented in models [10],[13],[14]. Thermography 

was performed on the specimens fielded in Golden on 

one of the hottest days in July, 2013. In the field, the jbox is typically hotter than the module interior. For the 

specimens in Golden, thermography identified that the 

j-box was ~5°C hotter than the module interior. 

IV. RESULTS OF THE TRAIL-RUN

The results of the trial-run experiment are 

summarized in Table IV, Table V, Table VI, and Table 

VII for the indoor-aged and field-deployed (Miami, 

Phoenix, and Golden) specimens, respectively. In the 

event of failure (colored yellow), the failure mode, time 

at failure, and failure interface are identified in the 

tables. “N.F.” (colored gray) indicates that no failure 

occurred during the experiment. 108 specimens were 

examined at each of the four locations. A total of 66 

failures occur within the tables. 

Regarding delamination of the PO melt, 46 failures 

occurred at melt/j-box interface, whereas 10 failures 

occurred at the substrate/melt interface (on either glass 

or TPE substrates). In the case of glass and TPE 

substrates, failure at the melt/j-box interface occurred

indoors, whereas failure at the glass/melt was common 

outdoors. Delamination at the TPE/melt interface 

occurred for samples with no weight after an extended 

duration only in Phoenix and Golden. When a weight 

was used, failure always occurred at the melt/j-box 

interface. This may suggest that the glass and TPE 

substrates are weaker adhering to the PO melt or are 

adversely affected in the environment with age. Prior 

DSC characterization of the PO melt [8],[9] identified 

the melting temperature of 81°C, which also likely 

affects its attachment in the trial-run experiment.

Regarding delamination of the PE foam tape, all 17

failures occurred at the surface/core interface. This is 

consistent with the discovery experiments, where 

delamination was also observed for both the PE and PU 

tapes at the surface/core interface. DSC characterization 

of the PE tape [8],[9] identified the melting temperature 

of 51°C, which also likely affects its attachment in the 

trial-run experiment.

The PE and PU foam tapes each demonstrated one 

creep failure. These two failures, which included

combined rotation and displacement, were observed for 

the indoor damp-heat test only. The melt temperature of 

51°C and glass transition temperature of -26°C were 

observed for the PE and PU tapes, respectively. The 

results of the discovery experiments and trial-run may 

suggest that the lesser melt temperatures apply to the 

adhesive surface layer of the PE and PU tapes. One 

creep failure was observed for PO melt. In this case, the 

unweighted j-box was displaced to the bottom of the 

substrate during the indoor damp-heat test only. 

Regarding the indoor chamber results, most 

failures in damp-heat occurred quickly, i.e., <1 day.

The sustained combination of high humidity and high 

temperature present in damp-heat motivates failure. 

Additional failures, corresponding to the field results, 

occurred during the subsequent creep test. This 

LOCATION MEASURAND T av g

{°C}

T max

{°C}

T min

{°C}

RHav g

{%}

wav g

{m⋅s-1}

wmax

{m⋅s-1}

Golden ambient 12.9 36.4 -18.1 42.0 2.0 17.2

Miami ambient 23.8 36.8 4.2 74.8 2.4 15.0

Phoenix ambient 22.7 45.8 -3.4 32.2 3.0 13.7

Miami module 28.5 74.0 0.0 N/A N/A N/A

Phoenix module 28.4 78.3 -6.5 N/A N/A N/A
4 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

suggests that the weighted j-box test should be applied 

during the creep test, in addition to the damp-heat 

and/or thermal-cycle tests. Finally, there are several 

instances in Table IV, Table V, Table VI, and Table VII

where the PE tape delaminated with weights present, 

but not always without a weight. This suggests that a

weight is required to adequately assess the system 

during the test. Within PV installations, there will likely 

be conditions where additional mechanical stress is 

applied to a j-box.

Regarding the field results, the most failures 

occurred in Miami. The results for the damp-heat test, 

including the number of failures and time to failure for 

the PE tape, exceeded the field results in Miami. This is 

attributed to the sustained moisture present, which in 

Table I is greater in the damp-heat test condition than in 

the Miami climate.

The results in Table VI and Table VII may be used 

to compare between Phoenix and Golden. Failures were 

typically observed sooner for the PO melt in Phoenix.

As might be expected, the creep test is therefore better 

correlated to the field results in Phoenix, the climate for 

which the creep test was prescribed [10]. One

additional delamination is observed for the PE tape in 

Golden. This may suggest that the greater humidity 

and/or range of temperature present in Golden may 

query adhesion better than the climate in Phoenix. 

Regarding a comparison of the field and indoor test 

results, the PO melt and PE tape were consistently 

identified as the weakest systems. A good 

correspondence between failures, including the mode

types and the specific system of materials affected, was

observed between the indoor- and field-test results. A 

few discrepancies, however, were observed, including 

the duration to failure (more rapid in the indoor tests),

failure modes (creep failure for PE tape and PU tape, 

observed only in the indoor test), and interfaces of 

failure (delamination at the adhesive/j-box interface vs. 

adhesive/substrate interface for the PO melt). In the 

case of test duration, the indoor tests occur at a greater 

temperature (facilitating degradation) than the majority 

of field ambient conditions, summarized in Table I. The 

results for weaker attachment systems were often 

similar, but the 0.9-kg weight sometimes motivated 

detachment when the 0.5-kg weight did not. Therefore, 

regarding the weight used during the test, a 1-kg weight 

is recommended to more rigorously examine the 

attachment system.

V. ATTACHMENT STRENGTH RESULTS

The results of attachment strength characterization 

are summarized in Table II and Table III for an acrylic 

tape and an alkoxy silicone adhesive. Quantities in the 

table include: the force, F; elongation, δ; test duration, 

t; mechanical stress, σ; and mechanical strain, ε. The 

maximum value of each parameter is given in the 

tables, which often corresponds to the measurement at 

the instant of failure. The average and standard 

deviation (S.D.) (±1) are given for five replicates at 

each test rate. 

Table II: Results of the adhesion strength characterization for 

the adhesion strength characterization (overlap-shear test) for 

acrylic foam tape (acrylic #2) and alkoxy silicone (with Ti 

catalyst) specimens.

Table III: Results of the adhesion strength characterization 

for the adhesion strength characterization (butt joint test) for 

acrylic foam tape (acrylic #2) and alkoxy silicone (with Ti 

catalyst) specimens.

Both types of material demonstrated substantial 

elongation (>4% strain) at failure. The acrylic tape 

demonstrated a strong rate dependence for attachment 

strength in both the lap-shear and pluck tests. Although

a similar overt trend with test rate was not observed for 

the silicone, the strength was generally greater with 

speed. The greatest strength and corresponding 

elongation is observed for the tape in shear or silicone 

in tension. 

Regarding differences between the materials and 

tests, the tape more often remained attached to the Al 

substrate, whereas the silicone remained attached nearly 

equally to the Al or glass. The area of the remaining 

attached tape typically reduced during test: in shear, the 

area was reduced down to one edge; in pluck, the area 

reduced down to one corner. The tape and silicone 

would both typically elongate in shear before 

delamination. The tape and silicone were both more 

prone to sudden delamination in the pluck test. 

MATERIAL

CROSSHEAD

SPEED

{mm⋅min-1}

Fmax

{N}

δmax

{mm}

tmax

{s}

σmax

{MPa}

εmax

{mm⋅mm-1}

tape 1000 1373±48 9.3±0.2 0.6±0.0 2.20±0.08 8.4±0.2

tape 100 773±84 10.5±1.0 6.3±0.7 1.24±0.13 9.5±0.9

tape 10 569±42 11.0±0.4 65.9±2.5 0.91±0.07 10.0±0.4

tape 1 429±23 10.3±0.2 617.6±15.0 0.69±0.04 9.4±0.2

tape 0.1 340±36 11.0±0.9 6,575.5±569.2 0.54±0.06 10.0±0.9

silicone 1000 992±50 7.4±0.6 0.4±0.0 1.59±0.08 7.4±0.6

silicone 100 794±29 7.4±1.0 4.4±0.7 1.27±0.05 9.5±0.9

silicone 10 665±51 8.2±1.2 49.1±7.1 1.06±0.08 8.2±1.2

silicone 1 610±46 8.2±0.6 495.2±38.2 0.98±0.07 8.2±0.6

silicone 0.1 503±26 8.0±0.9 4,825.2±529.7 0.80±0.04 8.0±0.9

MATERIAL

CROSSHEAD

SPEED

{mm⋅min-1}

Fmax

{N}

δmax

{mm}

tmax

{s}

σmax

{MPa}

εmax

{mm⋅mm-1}

tape 1000 816±129 6.9±2.6 0.4±0.2 1.31±0.21 6.3±2.3

tape 100 639±44 4.8±0.7 2.9±0.4 1.02±0.07 4.3±0.6

tape 10 381±15 7.7±1.9 45.9±11.8 0.61±0.02 7.0±1.8

tape 1 306±22 5.6±0.8 338.7±50.5 0.49±0.03 5.1±0.8

tape 0.1 233±7 5.6±0.3 3,371.1±178.1 0.37±0.01 5.1±0.3

silicone 1000 1021±89 5.0±1.0 0.3±0.1 1.63±0.14 4.5±0.9

silicone 100 1037±99 4.9±0.5 2.9±0.3 1.66±0.16 4.5±0.4

silicone 10 957±63 5.8±1.6 34.0±10.0 1.53±0.10 5.3±1.4

silicone 1 796±52 5.6±1.0 333.7±58.1 1.27±0.08 5.1±0.9

silicone 0.1 738±36 4.8±0.9 2,907.0±512.4 1.18±0.06 4.4±0.8
5 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

The lap-shear and pluck tests examine strength and 

do not incorporate principles of fracture mechanics, i.e., 

they do not account for the fundamental physics of 

adhesion or its thermodynamic favorability. Although

strength tests can be subject to specimen preparation, 

the attachment strength in Table II and Table III greatly 

exceeds the corresponding stress for the 0.9 kg j-box 

weights, ~5 kPa. The σ vs. ε results in Table II and 

Table III, however, are more akin to the “robustness of 

termination” test in Refs. [5],[6],[7], than to a sustained 

load that might be encountered in the field. It is the 

condition of a sustained load, which can facilitate 

detachment by severing bonds over time (even at loads 

below the maximum attachment strength) that is 

examined in the weighted j-box test.

VI. CONCLUSIONS

To validate a recently proposed weighted junctionbox test procedure for use in the PV module safety and 

qualification protocols, a trial-run was performed to 

compare indoor- and field-results. Although the 

temperature in the field can readily vary with the local 

climate, the j-box is often the hottest location (e.g., by 

≥5°C) in the module. Good correspondence between 

indoor- and field-tests was observed for the trial-run, 

including correlation between the mode types and the 

specific material systems affected. A weight is required 

to adequately assess the system during the proposed jbox test. A weight of 1 kg is recommended for the test 

to more rigorously examine the attachment system, 

emulating a prolonged load condition. Multiple indoor 

test conditions (including damp-heat and creep) were 

required to emulate the results from the field. It is

therefore proposed to apply the j-box test during the 

creep test in IEC 61730-2, as well as the damp-heat and 

thermal-cycle tests in the module qualification 

protocols. Attachment strength tests demonstrate that 

the sustained load condition emulated in the weighted jbox test is very different from the existing “robustness 

of termination” test.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This work was supported by the U.S. Department 

of Energy under Contract No. DE-AC36-08-GO28308 

with the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.

REFERENCES

[1] M. Osborne, “Fire Risk Fiasco as Dutch Government 

Warns Over 650,000 Scheuten Solar Modules,” PV 

Tech., February 20, 2013.

[2] R. MacDonald, M. Roosta, “Lessons Learned from 

Development of Silicon CPV Modules,” NREL PV 

Module Reliability Workshop 2012.

[3] T. Sample, A. Skoczek, M.T. Field, “Assessment of 

Ageing Through Periodic Exposure to Damp Heat 

(85°/85% RH) of Seven Different Thin-Film Module 

Types,” Proc. IEEE PVSC 34, 2220–2225 (2009). 

[4] W. Gambogi, S. Kurian, B. Hamzavytehrany, A. 

Bradley, J. Trout, “The Role of Backsheet in 

Photovoltaic Module Performance and Durability,” Proc. 

Euro PVSEC, 3325–3328 (2011).

[5] International Electrotechnical Commission, “IEC 61215 

Crystalline Silicon Terrestrial Photovoltaic (PV) 

Modules - Design Qualification and Type Approval,” 

International Electrotechnical Commission: Geneva, 

2005. 

[6] International Electrotechnical Commission, “IEC 61646 

Thin-Film Terrestrial Photovoltaic (PV) Modules – 

Design Qualification and Type Approval,” International 

Electrotechnical Commission: Geneva, 2008.

[7] International Electrotechnical Commission, “IEC 61730-

2 Photovoltaic (PV) Module Safety Qualification - Part 

2: Requirements for Testing,” International 

Electrotechnical Commission: Geneva, 2008.

[8] D.C. Miller, J.H. Wohlgemuth, “Examination of a 

Junction-Box Adhesion Test for Use in Photovoltaic 

Module Qualification,” Proc. SPIE, 2012, 8472-22.

[9] D.C. Miller, J.H. Wohlgemuth, “Examination of a 

Junction-Box Adhesion Test for Use in Photovoltaic 

Module Qualification,” NREL PR-5200-56321, 2012, 1-

22. 

[10] M.D. Kempe, D.C. Miller, J.H. Wohlgemuth, S.R. 

Kurtz, J.M. Moseley, Q. Shah, G. Tamizhmani, K. 

Sakurai, M. Inoue, T. Doi, A. Masuda, S.L. Samuels, C 

.E. Vanderpan, “Field Testing of Thermoplastic 

Encapsulants in High Temperature Installations,” 

submitted. 

[11] International Standard Organization, “ISO 4587

Adhesives—Determination of Tensile Lap-Shear 

Strength of Rigid-to-Rigid Bonded Assemblies,” 

International Standard Organization: Geneva, 2003. 

[12] International Standard Organization, “ISO 6922 

Adhesives—Determination of Tensile Strength of Butt 

Joints,” International Standard Organization: Geneva, 

1987. 

[13] D.L. King, W.E. Boyson, J.A. Kratochvil. Photovoltaic 

Array Performance Model. SAND2004-3535 2004; 1-

43. 

[14] D.C. Miller, M. D. Kempe, S.H. Glick, S.R. Kurtz, 

“Creep in Photovoltaic Modules: Examining the Stability 

of Polymeric Materials and Components,” Proc. IEEE 

PVSC, 2010, 262-268. 

[15] R.M. Smith, S.R. Kurtz, B. Sekulic, “Back-of-Module 

Temperature Measurement Methods,” Solar Pro., 4.6, 

2011, 90-104. 
6 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Table IV: Results for the mock modules subjected to indoor aging. The results for the damp-heat test are indicated in green font

(failures are shaded yellow, with indications including: failure mode; time to failure, in days; and the failure interface). The results for 

the subsequent creep test are similarly indicated in red font. “N.F.” (gray) indicates that no failure occurred during the experiment.

Table V: Results for the mock-module specimens fielded for one year in Miami. As in Table IV, the results for the test are indicated, 

if applicable, including: failure mode; time to failure, in days; and the failure interface. “GS” indicates the high green-strength 

silicone.

Table VI: Results for the mock-module specimens fielded for 1 year in Phoenix. As in Table IV, the results for the test are indicated, 

if applicable, including: failure mode; time to failure, in days; and the failure interface.

Table VII: Results for the mock-module specimens fielded for one year in Golden. As in Table IV, the results for the test are 

indicated, if applicable, including: failure mode; time to failure, in days; and the failure interface.

0 0.5 0.9 0 0.5 0.9 0 0.5 0.9 0 0.5 0.9

acrylic 1 foam tape N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F.

acrylic 2 foam tape N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F.

PE foam tape

delaminated

t<1d

at tape surface layer

delaminated

t<1d

at tape surface layer

delaminated

t<1d

at tape surface layer

N.F.

delaminated

t<1d

at tape surface layer

delaminated

t<1d

at tape surface layer

creep

(rotation)

t~20d

delaminated

t<1d

at tape surface layer

delaminated

t<1d

at tape surface layer

N.F.

delaminated

t<1d

at tape surface layer

delaminated

t<1d

at tape surface layer

PU foam tape N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. creep

t~14d N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F.

PO thermoplastic hot-melt

delaminated

t<1d

at melt/j-box

delaminated

t<1d

at melt/j-box

delaminated

t<1d

at melt/j-box

delaminated

t<6d

at melt/j-box

delaminated

t<1d

at melt/j-box

delaminated

t<1d

at melt/j-box

delaminated

t<1d

at melt/j-box

delaminated

t<1d

at melt/j-box

delaminated

t<1d

at melt/j-box

creep

t<1d

delaminated

t<1d

at melt/j-box

delaminated

t<1d

at melt/j-box

silicone acetoxy (Sn) N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F.

silicone alkoxy (Ti) N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F.

silicone alkoxy (Ti) GS N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F.

silicone oxime (Sn) N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F.

LOCATION: INDOOR, DAMP HEAT & CREEP

SUBSTRATE

Kynar/PET/EVA Tedlar/PET/EVA THV/PET/EVA untempered glass

APPLIED WEIGHT {kg}

observation/time/interface

MATERIAL

DESCRIPTION

or

CURING SCHEME

APPLIED WEIGHT {kg} APPLIED WEIGHT {kg} APPLIED WEIGHT {kg}

0 0.5 0.9 0 0.5 0.9 0 0.5 0.9 0 0.5 0.9

acrylic 1 foam tape N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F.

acrylic 2 foam tape N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F.

PE foam tape N.F.

delaminated

t~268d

at tape surface layer

delaminated

t~25d

at tape surface layer

N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F.

delaminated

t~186d

at tape surface layer

N.F.

delaminated

t~21d

at tape surface layer

delaminated

t<4d

at tape surface layer

PU foam tape N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F.

PO thermoplastic hot-melt

delaminated

t~0d

at melt/j-box

delaminated

t~0d

at melt/j-box

delaminated

t~0d

at melt/j-box

delaminated

t~12d

at melt/j-box

delaminated

t<1d

at melt/j-box

delaminated

t<1d

at melt/j-box

delaminated

t<1d

at melt/j-box

delaminated

t<1d

at melt/j-box

delaminated

t~0d

at melt/j-box

delaminated

t~333d

at glass/melt

delaminated

t<4d

at melt/j-box

delaminated

t~0d

at glass/melt

silicone acetoxy (Sn) N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F.

silicone alkoxy (Ti) N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F.

silicone alkoxy (Ti) GS N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F.

silicone oxime (Sn) N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F.

LOCATION: Miami, FL

SUBSTRATE

Kynar/PET/EVA Tedlar/PET/EVA THV/PET/EVA untempered glass

MATERIAL

DESCRIPTION

or

CURING SCHEME

APPLIED WEIGHT {kg} APPLIED WEIGHT {kg} APPLIED WEIGHT {kg} APPLIED WEIGHT {kg}

observation/time/interface

0 0.5 0.9 0 0.5 0.9 0 0.5 0.9 0 0.5 0.9

acrylic 1 foam tape N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F.

acrylic 2 foam tape N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F.

PE foam tape N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F.

delaminated

t<6d

at tape surface layer

PU foam tape N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F.

PO thermoplastic hot-melt

delaminated

t<1d

at melt/j-box

delaminated

t<1d

at melt/j-box

delaminated

t<1d

at melt/j-box

delaminated

t~157d

at TPE/melt

delaminated

t<1d

at melt/j-box

delaminated

t<1d

at melt/j-box

delaminated

t~0d

at melt/j-box

delaminated

t~0d

at melt/j-box

delaminated

t<1d

at melt/j-box

delaminated

t~60d

at glass/melt

delaminated

t<1d

at glass/melt

delaminated

t<1d

at glass/melt

silicone acetoxy (Sn) N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F.

silicone alkoxy (Ti) N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F.

silicone alkoxy (Ti) GS N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F.

silicone oxime (Sn) N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F.

MATERIAL

DESCRIPTION

or

CURING SCHEME

APPLIED WEIGHT {kg}

Kynar/PET/EVA Tedlar/PET/EVA

LOCATION: Phoenix, AZ

THV/PET/EVA untempered glass

APPLIED WEIGHT {kg} APPLIED WEIGHT {kg}

observation/time/interface

APPLIED WEIGHT {kg}

SUBSTRATE

0 0.5 0.9 0 0.5 0.9 0 0.5 0.9 0 0.5 0.9

acrylic 1 foam tape N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F.

acrylic 2 foam tape N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F.

PE foam tape N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F.

delaminated

t~54d

at tape surface layer

delaminated

t<4d

at tape surface 

layer

PU foam tape N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F.

PO thermoplastic hot-melt

delaminated

t<1d

at melt/j-box

delaminated

t<1d

at melt/j-box

delaminated

t<1d

at melt/j-box

delaminated

t~339d

at TPE/melt

delaminated

t<4d

at melt/j-box

delaminated

t<1d

at melt/j-box

delaminated

t<1d

at /melt/

delaminated

t<1d

at melt/j-box

delaminated

t<1d

at melt/j-box

delaminated

t~285d

at glass/melt

delaminated

t<1d

at glass/melt

delaminated

t<1d

at glass/melt

silicone acetoxy (Sn) N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F.

silicone alkoxy (Ti) N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F.

silicone alkoxy (Ti) GS N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F.

silicone oxime (Sn) N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F. N.F.

LOCATION: Golden, CO

SUBSTRATE

Kynar/PET/EVA Tedlar/PET/EVA THV/PET/EVA untempered glass

APPLIED WEIGHT {kg}

observation/time/interface

MATERIAL

DESCRIPTION

or

CURING SCHEME

APPLIED WEIGHT {kg} APPLIED WEIGHT {kg} APPLIED WEIGHT {kg}